I have a canon eos digital. I basically use a 28-300mm lens right now but i need something that will work better when i'm closer to the train. I was thinking of one that is doesnt zoom(i figure it would be cheaper anyway). I dont know squat about lenses so any advice would be helpful, thanks.

I can't point you towards a specific lense, but I can say that I've had a long relationship with Canon products and I believe them to be the best. I would bring your camera to a knowledgeable camera store and try on an assortment of lenses to see which you like best. I would stick with Canon. I own an F-1 which I had been thinking about trading in for a digital model, but now I'm having second thoughts.

~Paul Joyce~[i]Moderator: Toy Trains, Model Railroading, Outdoor and Live SteamPaul Joyce passed away in August, 2013. We honor his memory and his devotion at railroad.net.

Triker wrote:I have a canon eos digital. I basically use a 28-300mm lens right now but i need something that will work better when i'm closer to the train. I was thinking of one that is doesnt zoom(i figure it would be cheaper anyway). I dont know squat about lenses so any advice would be helpful, thanks.

you're from massachusetts right? go to hunts photo and video in melrose. (100 main st.) its a huge store . they have alot of peoplebehind the counters that will be more than glad to help you. i, myself bought there an eos elan 7, eos digital d-60, ef 28-80 lense, ef 70-300 lense,all canon. prices are pretty good too. they will also take any camera equipment on trade, so bring your old stuff if you want to get rid of it. bad a

The best one I can recommand is a 17-55mm and/or the 24 mm wide angle..

I did a try on Canon,but now,I'm using Nikon,but Canon is almost the samething..(I Could come back on Canon next time I buy a camera )If Your's closer from few feet away from the trains,the 17-55mm will be the right one,but if you have a higher budget,you have the option to get the 24 mm wide angle or a 12 mm,(the 2 last ones does'nt have zoom)..

I remember when shooting with a 24 mm Wide-angle,I was on the bridge,and ,I was able to see the bridge grider where I was,and I was leaning my foot on the grider and 3 feet over it..

Also note that 28 and 24 are not particularly wide on non-full-frame DSLRs. The 1.6x crop factor makes a 28mm lens equivalent to a 45mm lens, or a 24mm equivalent to a 38mm lens. 45 and 38 are both within the "normal" field of view. To get a 28mm equivalent field of view on a non-full-frame DSLR, you would need a 17mm or 18mm lens. To get a 24mm equivalent field of view, you would need a 15mm lens.

You didn't say what kind of Canon DSLR you have, but I'm going to assume that it's a non-full-frame model -- the full-frame models are very expensive and I think you probably would have mentioned that in your initial post.

Therefore, you will want to look for a lens that is 18mm or less. Zooms are not necessarily more expensive than non-zooms. The basic 18-55mm "kit zoom" that Canon sells is one of the most affordable lenses they make. The newest version, which has image stabilization, is really quite good, and an excellent value. That would probably be the best place for you to start. Just set it at 18mm and you're good to go. In the future if you find yourself needing an even wider field of view, there are many good lenses to choose from... but the 18-55 is the most sensible place for you to start, and it won't break the bank.

I bought a sigma 10-20mm lens a few weeks ago(sorry guys i should have updated the thread when i bought it). I am having mixed feelings about the lens. It seems like it wants to give the photo a sort of fish eye effect.

That is what happens with an extreme wide angle lens (which the Sigma 10-20 definitely is, especially when used in the 10mm to 14mm range). The distortion is normal for that type of lens. There are software programs that you can use to correct the distortion.

Even the professional-grade, super-expensive ultra-wide zooms from Canon and Nikon have that kind of distortion. It's just the nature of the beast.

Triker wrote:I bought a sigma 10-20mm lens a few weeks ago(sorry guys i should have updated the thread when i bought it). I am having mixed feelings about the lens. It seems like it wants to give the photo a sort of fish eye effect.

I have a rebel xti.

That is because it is a fisheye lens. Generally these lenses should be used sparingly, for special effects, especially at the wide end of their range. I have the similar Pentax lens, described by Pentax as follows:

Ken W2KB wrote:That is because it is a fisheye lens. Generally these lenses should be used sparingly, for special effects, especially at the wide end of their range. I have the similar Pentax lens, described by Pentax as follows:

I bought a Sigma fisheye a few months ago which I'm really happy with. I was torn between the Pentax zoom fisheye (above) or the one I eventually got, and ultimately selected the latter because it goes down to 2.8.

I've probably used my fisheye more than most people would, but I love its effect and the images I've gotten out of it. Some samples from my Flickr page:

While you decide to splurge on another lens you could experiement with stitching ...http://www.jcuknz-photos.com/CRRM-Round ... oadnet.jpgtaken with a 35mm equivalent but working with 45 equivalent would just mean more frames,this one used seven or eight frames. Works best if you use a good editing programme with layouts like I do.